Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday September 05, 2012 @05:33PM
from the get-it-while-it's-hot-and-doesn't-support-the-government dept.

New submitter payola writes "On September 15, Amazon will begin adding in sales tax for purchases made in California. This is sparking a buying frenzy among California residents who are rushing to buy consumer electronics and other expensive items on the site before the deadline. Of course, consumers are supposed to pay sales taxes on their online purchases anyway, but few actually do. 'Amazon is not the only Internet merchant affected by the new law. But as the nation's largest online retailer, it has been the main target. More than 200 other out-of-state companies with major business in California may also be on the hook to collect sales taxes on items shipped to the state. The tax revenue from these online sales is being lauded as a win for the debt-ridden state, which estimates it will see an additional $317 million annually as a result; more than $83 million of that is expected to come from Amazon alone.'"

I don't avoid taxes when I feel that my money is well spent. But its been a long time since I felt that way.

Near my small California town, I can count about 20 million spent on the 32nd park in my small town, a roadside beautification project that is far from beautiful, new road signs made by the company that does them for Rodeo Drive (the old road signs were fine), a pedestrian overpass that absolutely nobody uses because its 10x longer than just running across the street, etc.

Don't even get me started on the Federal governments waste of my tax dollars.

I can spend my money in way more useful ways than they can, and I'm sure I've created more jobs than the entirety of the government, on every level. Hell, I have at least 4 different delivery people come to my house almost every day.

I don't even care that much, so long as I get a say in how it's spent.

It'd be easy to do. Put a list of projects and costs on the internet and let people vote for them. Top votes win and we keep going down the list until we're out of money. Anyone or any entity that wants to private fund a project can whip out their checkbook.

Once you fix the unique online identify situation, you've also got all voting online capable.

Of course, none of this will ever happen. Not because of technology issues, but because polticians take the job for power and the ability to spend other peoples money with impunity. They sure as shoot don't want us voting online, because then everyone would do it and they'd have lots of available information to make their decisions. Politicians like people who do what they're told, when they're told.

Hell, we aren't even allowed to vote for candidates in the primaries unless we state a party affiliation and then we're only allowed to vote for candidates from that party. The republicans wont even send you a ballot if you ask for it, unless you register republican. They're uncomfortable with non-sheeple independent voters who might upset their preprogrammed apple cart.

I think the idea was to put a list of pre-approved projects up for vote or to let people submit ideas for approval by a board of some sort. I would hope a city, county, state, etc wouldn't actually let people vote on erecting statues of giant penises. San Francisco is obviously excluded. I was disappointed not seeing any when I visited for the first time.

Those projects would literally be better than the many projects that produce absolutely nothing, or less than nothing. My city spent a couple million dollars replacing perfectly good lampposts with quaint-looking ones that provide less light. I wish we got a dick statue instead.

Isn't that what California does now? Prop 123 to pay for X and Prop 456 to pay for Y. Some outrageous percentage of their budget is tied up in these "feel good" mandates. The legislature wants to increase funding for teachers, but they first have to pay out to the "orphan kitten" fund. When someone attempts to repeal the mandate, they are villainized in TV ads, saying they want to feed the kittens, and the elderly, to alligators.

No, they'll Prop 123 to demand X (which passes), and in the same election Prop 124 for the tax increase to pay for X (which gets voted down). Which is one of the major reasons why they're budget is in a serious mess.

It'd be easy to do. Put a list of projects and costs on the internet and let people vote for them. Top votes win and we keep going down the list until we're out of money. Anyone or any entity that wants to private fund a project can whip out their checkbook.

right, and when people vote to spend your tax dollars on free donuts and coffee for your city and personal massages for all residents, what will you do then?

Put a list of projects and costs on the internet and let people vote for them. Top votes win and we keep going down the list until we're out of money.

That isn't enough information. We also need to know the expected net social benefits, in the same currency as the costs. For example, a project that costs $2 million and gives $4 million in benefits is a better investment than a project that costs half as much ($1 million) but gives only $1 million in benefits.

Although I don't disagree in general that politicians don't really care too much what people want, that's a far too cynical attitude to think they like people who do what they're told. A much simpler explanation for their behaviour is that they are bought/paid-for since the easiest way to get re-elected is to spend lots of money (advertising for elections and bringing back pork for the local folks, etc). If they thought it would be easier to get re-elected by just figuring out what most of the people want

Biggest problem I have with government is it spends whatever it likes, regardless how much I pay in taxes. Watching it go from $1 trillion debt in 1980 to $16 trillion these days, tells me the act of collecting taxes is largely done to pay interest on the debt, nothing more.

Biggest problem I have with government is it spends whatever it likes, regardless how much I pay in taxes.

This. Why should we feel morally compelled to offer up MORE of our hard earned money to a group of people who are completely unable to responsibly handle what we already give them? Even if we turned over our entire yearly incomes and lived off the land, they'd still find a way to utterly piss it all away and we'd be in the same boat. Blaming *us* for the state's financial woes is blaming the victim. The state needs to get its own shit straight before they go pointing the finger at anybody else.

Biggest problem I have with government is it spends whatever it likes, regardless how much I pay in taxes.

This. Why should we feel morally compelled to offer up MORE of our hard earned money to a group of people who are completely unable to responsibly handle what we already give them? Even if we turned over our entire yearly incomes and lived off the land, they'd still find a way to utterly piss it all away and we'd be in the same boat. Blaming *us* for the state's financial woes is blaming the victim. The state needs to get its own shit straight before they go pointing the finger at anybody else.

It's hard to have sympathy for the state's plight. When the state announced they were going to close 70 state parks private individuals donated money in an attempt to keep some of those parks open.

Then it turned out that up to $54 million was squirrelled away, for still murky reasons, that should of gone to funding the parks.

If CA finances are this much of a mess how can Californians in good conscious be asked to pay yet more in tax hikes?

Greetings and salutation; So...you, the AC, are willing to trust your government to a man who has made his millions by making sure that the businesses he has had a hand in have made a huge profit, no matter WHAT the human cost, as opposed to a community organizer who has worked to help the disadvantaged in America? You do realize, do you not, that Mr. Romney will throw you under the bus with no more thought or concern than he would with an empty milk carton, if it

If you think Romney and Obama are equally statist then you haven't been paying attention. Not my fault.

The fact is you have two choices, one is better than the other in terms of individual liberties and economics. The OP made the poorly stated point "they are all not worth a dam just the rich standing on the backs for the working man". Do you understand what it is that will stand for the working man? Centralized government will only work against this. The conservative stands for local government power,

We all want the money to be spent well. We all want to have say in how it's used. But the reality is that sometimes the money is going to be spent on things we don't like (e.g. Iraq or TSA). And people who do like these things don't want money going to, say, ACORN or Planned Parenthood (I'm making some generalizations here). And someone who lives in Northern California might not like that $200 of his taxes are going towards widening a freeway in San Diego. But this is how government (even an efficient and trim one, which CA is not) works.

If you want to fix government and how it spends your money, get involved. Hold your representatives accountable for how they vote (not what they say in speeches). Don't use the fact that government does many things (some you like, some you don't) as an excuse to skip taxes. Despite what some politicians are saying, tax evasion is NOT patriotic.

We all want the money to be spent well. We all want to have say in how it's used. But the reality is that sometimes the money is going to be spent on things we don't like (e.g. Iraq or TSA). And people who do like these things don't want money going to, say, ACORN or Planned Parenthood (I'm making some generalizations here). And someone who lives in Northern California might not like that $200 of his taxes are going towards widening a freeway in San Diego. But this is how government (even an efficient and trim one, which CA is not) works.

If you want to fix government and how it spends your money, get involved. Hold your representatives accountable for how they vote (not what they say in speeches). Don't use the fact that government does many things (some you like, some you don't) as an excuse to skip taxes. Despite what some politicians are saying, tax evasion is NOT patriotic.

You apparently read "avoid" as "evade". Easy to do.

Wish these guys spent even a fraction of my money on important stuff, although the things you listed are federal, not state obligations.

Our politicians waste 80% of my money on things nobody would support, except maybe the people cashing the checks.

Get involved? Hmm, unless I'm ready to line up under a billion dollar entity that'll tell me how I'll be voting, I wouldn't have a chance in hell of running or changing anything. Unless I can swing that kind o

Actually, "getting involved" is one of california's biggest problems. So much of government money is spent placating the stupid californian people whose lives have absolutely no meaning because they are just worthless individuals. That's left with joining groups where the only thing you have to do is sit there and be annoying outside of grocery stores collecting signatures for a handful of people who like wasting taxes on stupid endeavors like putting those bumpy things outside of grocery stores in NEVER-FR

The government doesn't need my money. We are sixteen trillion dollars in debt. Actually, far worse than that. But if you just go off the typical "national debt clock" numbers, it's only sixteen trillion. That's $16,000,000,000,000.00. That's up six trillion from four years ago and up eleven trillion from twelve years ago. Taking a thousand dollars out of my pocket has a real meaningful impact on my life and the life of people I care about. It means very little to my government, who has absolutely no concern for the value of money. They don't need my thousand dollars (or tens of thousands of dollars per year, actually). How do I know they don't need it? Because no matter how much we give them, they spend trillions more that don't actually exist. I don't have the luxury of spending money I don't have, so the money actually means something to me when they take it away. If they don't take it away, they would have no problem just magically inventing that money and throwing it onto the spent pile of "money we'll owe forever".

The system is broken and "getting involved" will accomplish nothing. It's fixed and its broken and the concept of "participation" is there not so that you can accomplish anything, but for the same bullshit reason we tell people it's important to "get out and vote". Because it placates you. It has ZERO real impact. It just makes you feel like you're a better (if meaningless) person.

Civil disobedience has demonstrated it's effectiveness, while "getting involved," as far as our research has revealed, is slightly less powerful than a single queef. It may be a cop out to avoid just sales tax because it's easy, when a true activist would pay absolutely no taxes, but someone who obliviously or cynically works with the shit he finds ends up living in a house made of shit.

And then there's the MTC [ca.gov] in the San Francisco Bay Area (funded through sales tax and bridge tolls among other sources) that purchased an entire building in downtown San Francisco and is renovating it to become offices for $170M. It's not clear why they couldn't stay in Oakland where office space is much cheaper than downtown San Francisco. Well, it is clear -- they have unlimited funding since residents are forced to fund them, if they need more money they can just raise tolls and/or taxes.

When confronted with the fact that their purchase may not have been cost effective, the MTC rep said:

a San Mateo County supervisor who chairs the commission, insisted that the agency's goal was never to make money - or even necessarily to break even."We're not looking at it as investment per se," Tissier said. "We look at it as moving into your own home."

That's the problem with government agencies - what incentive do they have to spend money wisely?

like many cities san jose was and is struggling its budget and has laid off workers, cut worker wages, cut pensions and benefits, and cut city services. that didn't stop them from building a new $400M city hall right at the peak of the economic downturn.

the old offices were *fine* (i live across the street from them), and if they needed more space there were (and still are) literally hundreds of large vacant office buildings in san jose that could have been had for cheap.

Seriously though, governments do do stuff that you need. Yes, they waste a lot, but that doesn't justify this lame All Government is a Waste meme. It's the stupidest legacy of old Ronald Reagan — who actually didn't do much about government waste. Beyond, that is, telling stupid stories about it. He did cut taxes a lot, so of course he was a great leader! Hey, never mind the resulting deficit.

California has a spending problem. This is a well known problem, and it has been around for a number of years. We have a balanced budget amendment here in California, but our legislature flagrantly ignores it by "projecting" tax revenues to balance whatever sort of batshit-crazy spending program they want to fund. It's so bad, that the *Democrat* State Controller called the Democrat-run legislature on their bullshit.

The reason spending is out of control in the state is because several powerful interest grou

you mean hollywood accounting, corporate welfare give aways, rich company oil / ag / pharma subsidies, among other ways companies and the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes? You will notice that these kinds of changes are only happening when it shifts the burden more on the middle class and the poor.

When the government passes a law that says, "you must hit yourself in the head until you get a good headache", and the people don't obey, don't blame the people.

I'm not a radical libertarian who believes the government should just curl up and die; but there's smart government and there's stupid government. Requiring customers to tax themselves after the point of sale, and expecting anything other than massive non-compliance is stupid government par excellance.

> The difference is that avoidance is legal
It's legal because they change the laws to make it that way. Mitt Romney made his money 'legally' too, but is too ashamed to release his tax returns so we know how. That should tell you something. If every worker in the US insisted they are paid through their Cayman's registered company which employs them on "minimum wage" then Treasury would spit their coffee.

> The tax revenue from these online sales is being lauded as a win for the debt-ridden state, w

And the reason why those avoidance strategies for the rich are "legal" is because some rich contingent paid off a lobbyist who in turn wrote some ridiculous exclusion into the tax code who then handed that pre-written "law" to a politician who was given a piece of the lobbyist's cut to attach that "law" as a ridiculous addendum to a an unrelated bill that got passed by other corrupt politicians who also sipped from the same money well. But sure, it's legal.

And for those against taxes, how do you think the roads get built and repaired, bridges built, libraries funded, oversight to make sure our water, food, and medical care are safe, even trains and other public transportation (when you need it you appreciate it), fire departments, emergency response, kids educated, streets and roadways cleaned, etc. etc. etc. No taxes - and we will just end up with new fees from other sources.

I wish they'd spend money on those things. We've had our school budgets cut so far I had to spend $250 on school supplies for my kids room. Real exotic stuff like staplers and marker pens for the white board. I also have to routinely fix school computers as it appears they cut everyone who can fix anything. My wife and I spend time daily in the classroom, because there are too many students and the teachers can't even perform class management, let alone teach them.

We spend more on education and health care, yet get among the worst results.

All of the county fire departments and state resources are all isolated now and won't help each other without being paid for the pleasure. Can't wait until the next time we have a huge fire near a county line and everyone on the other side is sitting on their hands, waiting to get paid.

I live in a wealthy town, yet my roads suck. Most of the roads around here do. 15 miles from the state capital, so it aint like Jerry doesn't see it.

We cut our library staffs so much, many of them closed or are only open limited hours.

We're currently spending billions on a high speed rail that starts in the middle of nowhere and ends in the middle of nowhere, which nobody will ride.

But we spent $400k to put up new rodeo drive quality signs in my town.

My friend Jerry says he's asking for a tax increase, and if we don't give into it, he'll cut the schools, healthcare and state welfare budgets. I seem to have missed how they're going to cut back on unnecessary spending, like any sane person would do when they're spending more than they're taking in.

Sounds a lot like extortion to me.

I'd be Buffet-like and write a check for extra, if they actually put the money to good use. But they don't. If they spent most of it in the areas you mentioned, I'd be all for it. But that stuff is in last place when it comes time to write a check. The politicians know most of us are too stupid to think it through and will just buckle and pay more.

But if they raise taxes, I'm packed and ready to leave. We already pay high income, sales and property taxes. I'm not getting my moneys worth. Nevada or New Mexico or Oregon are alllll calling...

If you already spend your own time and money educating your kids, why not take the next step and home school them? Home schooled kids learn a lot more, and everything happens on your schedule, not the school's.

And depending on your kid's age, the cost of day-care can be almost one spouse's entire income in a two income family. I know my mom stopped working to homeschool me because it cost more for her to work and send me to day-care than to not work.

Perhaps the issue is that you clearly do not understand how your government works. The fact that your town is 15 miles outside of Sacto doesn't mean that maintaining your roads is a State issue. In fact it is NOT. It is either the responsibility of your town or your county if unincorporated. Similarly the reasons your school budgets are being cut is most likley because of Prop 13 (which limits property tax) than because of poor management (although both could be at fault). I have no idea why you think CA sp

FWIW when you purchase stuff out of state in California you use the "use tax" line on the state form to add up your taxes and pay those unpaid ones at the end of the year.

We have a similar use tax here in Maine and when I lived in Washington State we had use tax there. In both cases, tax due can be calculated based on the actual amount of out of state purchase or the tax payer can elect to pay a calculated amount based on income -- essentially an amnesty payment. I've always opted for the amnesty option because it's very difficult to get an accurate total of out of state purchases. As states move toward collecting sales tax on out of state purchases, those of us who also

Actually, I do. I started my own one-man consulting business and took a quick accounting class. This topic came up (Use Tax). I wasn't aware of this prior to this time, and mostly because I wanted to track everything accurately (as I was claiming business expenses, etc.), I tracked all purchases. This included tracking all purchases which didn't have sales tax so that I could pay use taxes.

Anyway, long story shortened, I was offered a full-time position at one of my clients, and shut down my business.

which estimates it will see an additional $317 million annually as a result

And will be instantly pissed away on corruption and bullshit and the bond payments for the initial funding for that idiotic "high speed" train which is really just a welfare project for high paid political cronies to sit around on boards and committees.

Insufficient funding for public education would be fixed if CA could manage it's budget, and stop pissing away my taxes on ridiculous expenses. As would the awful roads, poor public transportation, and any other number of things.

Well, some are. The CSU system is a public system in contrast to the mostly private UC system. Go Trojans!... Yeah, I actually have no school spirit.;-) I consider my degrees to be pure business transactions. I paid money and they gave me head stuff and a valuable parchment.

That's all part of the problem, but, damn, you try and argue this stuff with, say, a hard core Progressive, and, oh my, I want to starve the elderly and abolish fire departments and feed children to the coyotes and, holy moly the hyperbole out of those folks! It's like talking church/state separation with evangelical neocons.

Well they arent good at math, so cannot comprehend why their bleeding heart isnt right.

Now, even if we barred public sector unions and States from negotiating over the destination of distant-future tax revenue, the problem we have still stands. There are a hell of a lot of people that EXPECT those pensions because they worked for several decades under a contract that stated that those pensions would be there.

The other problem is of course that there really ARE a hell of a lot of these people. Even thoug

There are states that do not have sales tax. I believe that Alaska is one of them. So what would happen if someone in Alaska would purchase an item and than give that item to someone in a state that did have a sales tax? With automobiles it is easy since that automobile must be registered in the state of residency the sales tax is collected when registering that automobile. I recently purchased a used car and I had to pay sales tax on it. I payed $10,000 for a car that was sold for $16,000 so the state

So what would happen if someone in Alaska would purchase an item and than give that item to someone in a state that did have a sales tax? With automobiles it is easy since that automobile must be registered in the state of residency the sales tax is collected when registering that automobile.

There are efforts to monitor state border of New Hampshire (no sales tax) for anyone trying to buy anything major (cars, electronics, etc.) and take it across the border -- not sure how exactly.

Most stores at the border have limits to how many packs of cigarets you can buy in one go.

There are efforts to monitor state border of New Hampshire (no sales tax) for anyone trying to buy anything major (cars, electronics, etc.) and take it across the border

Regarding vehicles, in the states I've lived in, if you bring in a car from out of state you have to prove you have owned it for a relatively long period of time (say 12 months). Otherwise, they collect state sales tax when the vehicle is registered/licensed.

Honestly, when VA starts collecting sales tax from Amazon it will have zero impact on my buying decisions from them.

I buy from Amazon because it is easy and convenient. With Prime, things are delivered right to the door within a day or two. When same day shipping is there, there will be virtually no where else I'll need to shop.

I spend approximately $17,000 a year at Amazon. My state tax load would be a bit over $1500 per year.

Which qualifies it for a serious BFD in this household.

No biggie. There are usually 4-5 online companies with prices within a few percent of each other. I usually give amazon the nod because of their good customer service, return policy, fast shipping and competitive prices. Add 9% to those prices and I'm buying from one of the other 3-4 who don't.

Either you aren't from here, or you're just another retardican. Infrastructure is amazing here, the police rock, and you should try jury duty, the initial opening presentation is inspiring (because they know you are a selfish fuck who doesn't get it, and lay it out such a way that an infant like yourself can get it).

I've lived in CT, LA, VA and now CA. It is so well planned and managed here you can't imagine because you're an anonymous coward, a pussy, selfish, and voted for the wrong party until you "rea

This is the beginning of the end for sales-tax evading commerce of all kinds, e-commerce, telephone ordering, and order by mail. It is the beginning of the end for the small and mid size non-store commerce businesses.

As every state, county, and other municipalities pile on to demanding these non-store merchants collect their sales taxes, the merchants are going to be faced with a very difficult task: keeping track of the tax rate where the purchase is delivered, and then remitting those funds to the appropriate government agency. Consider a city dwelling consumer, who is liable for city, county, and state sales taxes. The merchant must know how much to collect from each customer based on the delivery address, and will need to maintain separate accounting for every district that they must remit the collected taxes to.

This is going to be very expensive, and guess who pays? Mr. Customer. It will also be very damaging to small and medium size non-store retailers, who will not be able to afford the systems to administer collecting for tens of thousands of different tax regions.

There needs to be a better solution, one that can scale, one that is acceptable to both the merchants and the tax-collecting government.

What will the result be?Amazon will fade as all those consumers move to sites where they don't have to pay California's already ridiculous sales tax. Eventually the rest of the states will demand amazon pay up... and they will fade into obscurity. At least, up until now, they were collecting taxes from amazons earnings. In the end California will collect NOTHING as the company people place their orders with will be in Canada, Mexico, or somewhere else.

I've always been curious to see how many Californians make purchases from Newegg - I think it's relatively small compared to their overall business throughout the U.S. Amazon will experience the same thing.

Any tax money amazon gets, they'd get anyway. If $9 more breaks the bank on a $100 purchase then you shouldn't be spend the $100 anyway.

You're starting to sound like my wife.

Frankly, I buy 10% more than I would if I were universally taxed. What do you think does more for the economy...me and a brazillion other people spending a little extra to build and deliver things, or giving that money to the California legislators to build that high speed rail that starts near nothing and ends near nothing and that almost nobody will ever ride?

Actually, someone else who does not apply CA tax, will get the business. If I get a $700 laptop, the tax would be 70 dollars (Recycling tax+tax in my county is 9.25%). I would rather buy it from one of the other online retailers.

The's another dynamic here. Imagine if you're a brick and mortar store trying to compete with amazon. Not only do they have low overhead, high volumes, etc, but they have a 10% price break from no sales taxes. How can you compete with that? this levels the playing field a little bit. Inb4 brick and mortar is a fail: remember that they provide al people jobs in California, so if we can make brick and mortar more competitive with online (at least by removing artificial barriers) then it is good for the state.

B&M stores can't compete anyhow. If I want something, chances are I'd have to go to five stores to find it, and it'd be 20% more than I could buy the item for online. After I spent $5 worth of gas looking for it. Once again, no thanks.

Why level the playing field? Amazon has a very good business going that employs a lot of people. B&M stores that only stock a slice of what I want are yesterdays old moldy news.

You have seen the story about how amazon intends to deliver about 50-70% of their items the same day as ordered? They're already working with a van service here in the southwest and I've been happy with their deliveries so far.

Oh, and all of the grocery stores near me will pull and deliver an order for free. One did it so the rest had to follow suit.

Seems like the wave is moving away from lots of stores that don't have what I want to a bunch of giant warehouses and guys that bring the stuff to my house. But lets fark that up by 'leveling the playing field', which in my experience means cutting the legs out of someone doing a good job and handing them to someone that wants to screw those legs to the top of their head.

Because Amazon will ship same day and have to pay taxes anyways, they are a stone throw away from opening up their own B&M store. Might as well at this point. Imagine all the Best Buy's and Walmarts having some serious competition from that new Amazon flagship store down the road housing all the popular items for impulse shoppers.

Not only do they have low overhead, high volumes, etc, but they have a 10% price break from no sales taxes. How can you compete with that? this levels the playing field a little bit.

Sure, lets artificially make less efficient businesses more competitive.

This is why I inserted time-wasting OS calls into my qsort() function. I want bubble sort to be able to compete with more efficient sorting algorithms, so I make sure that bubble is artificially more competitive.

I also installed the battery from the old dumb phone into my new smart phone, because it just was not right that the new phone lasted longer on a charge than the old one did.

Are you picking up what I am putting down? Maybe you should have someone else help you pick that up, even though you are perfectly capable of doing it on your own. We wouldn't want people incapable of picking it up by themselves to feel less competitive.

It may not change much. If Amazon is opening more warehouses in California, it can offset the negative perception from taxes by making it easier to get free or at least fast shipping. In the former case, it cuts Amazon's shipping costs so they can offer up more things for free. In the latter case, people are very happy to get things next- or second-day when they paid for longer delivery times. This was originally a major reason for me to start buying from NewEgg as a lot of the Southern California area

how many millions has California spent (in manpower, in legal bills, etc) to 'win' this money? how many years of this will it take to break even?

and now that things will cost more, how much less will California consumers spend (both with Amazon and from local stores)

Ding Ding Ding, we have another winnar!

They'll get almost nothing. Most of it will go to two towns where amazon is building warehouses, and those towns are giving amazon most of the money to get them to build there.

So we the people will have a lot of their tax money spent collecting and redistributing the tax income, but very little of that will actually go to the state level. So they spent all of that (our) money getting next to nothing, and amazon and those two towns are smarter than Jerry and the CA le

Tax burden measures who gets stuck with the burden, not whose income statement the taxes show up on. And I do mean stuck, because nobody really likes paying taxes and nobody will if they don't have to.

Who bears the burden depends almost entirely on relative elasticities of supply and demand. To be blunt, who has more bargaining power.

If I have perishable goods to sell, and can't withhold anything, my customers are all informed and ruthlessly play me against my competitors, and a new tax comes donw, guess

Easy. Amazon has no presence in california, so they never had to collect sales tax. California passed legislation that made affiliates (people who list amazon products on their personal site, often with reviews and 'how-to's and received payment for a click through) were employees, so amazon had employees in the state and had to collect tax.

So amazon 'fired' all of their affiliates, many of which set up fronts in Oregon or other states and continued as before, but many also threw in the towel, costing cal